daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Which bid should host the FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022?
Australia - 2018 255 12.32%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2018 247 11.94%
England - 2018 538 26.00%
Indonesia - 2018 68 3.29%
Japan - 2018 35 1.69%
Mexico - 2018 105 5.07%
Qatar - 2018 78 3.77%
Russia - 2018 279 13.48%
South Korea - 2018 16 0.77%
Spain / Portugal - 2018 267 12.90%
USA - 2018 116 5.61%
Australia - 2022 378 18.27%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2022 111 5.36%
England - 2022 114 5.51%
Indonesia - 2022 122 5.90%
Japan - 2022 37 1.79%
Mexico - 2022 149 7.20%
Qatar - 2022 153 7.39%
Russia - 2022 148 7.15%
South Korea - 2022 23 1.11%
Spain / Portugal - 2022 184 8.89%
USA - 2022 249 12.03%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 2069. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old December 2nd, 2005, 12:48 PM   #181
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,018
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExSydney
Also,how many countries around the World have 2 ultra-modern all seater 80,000 + venues??
There's no doubt that the MCG is modern and huge.

But it's an awful stadium for watching football.

Really only suitable for cricket and Aussie Rules.
JimB está en línea ahora  

Sponsored Links
Old December 2nd, 2005, 01:12 PM   #182
Noostairz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 9,896
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExSydney
Also,how many countries around the World have 2 ultra-modern all seater 80,000 + venues??
not only england, but london itself. in fact the city of london itself could almost host an entire world cup!

1) wembley (u/c - 90,000)
2) twickenham (u/c - 82,000)
3) emirates stadium (u/c - 60,000)
4) stamford bridge (42,449 - w/ rumours existing of a redevelopment to 50,000)
5) upton park (35,647 - planned redevelopment will take the capacity to 40,500)
6) white hart lane (36,214 - rumours of redevelopment or relocation make another 40,000+ stadium likely)
7) the valley (27,116 - planned redevelopment will take the capacity to 40,600)
8) madejski stadium (24,084 - the stadium is designed so that additional tiers can be added to the north, east and south stands, taking the capacity to 40,000)

Last edited by Noostairz; December 2nd, 2005 at 01:40 PM.
Noostairz no está en línea  
Old December 2nd, 2005, 01:22 PM   #183
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,018
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by edennewstairs
not only england, but london itself. in fact the city of london itself could almost host an entire world cup!

1) wembley (u/c - 90,000)
2) twickenham (u/c - 82,000)
3) emirates stadium (u/c - 60,000)
4) stamford bridge (42,449 - w/ rumours existing of a redevelopment to 50,000)
5) upton park (35,647 - planned redevelopment will take the capacity to 40,500)
6) the valley (27,116 - planned redevelopment will take the capacity to 40,600)
7) madejski stadium (24,084 - the stadium is designed so that additional tiers can be added to the north, east and south stands, taking the capacity to 40,000)
Ahem! You must be a gooner!

You've missed White Hart Lane from that list. 36,200 now but, by 2018, will be 50,000+ or Spurs will have moved to a new stadium.

Selhurst Park is another stadium that is much in need of redevelopment and which could eventually increase to 40,000 or so.

There has also been talk of Fulham eventually increasing to over 30,000.

There will also be the Olympic stadium, with its reduced capacity after the games.
JimB está en línea ahora  
Old December 2nd, 2005, 01:38 PM   #184
Noostairz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 9,896
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB
Ahem! You must be a gooner!

You've missed White Hart Lane from that list. 36,200 now but, by 2018, will be 50,000+ or Spurs will have moved to a new stadium.

Selhurst Park is another stadium that is much in need of redevelopment and which could eventually increase to 40,000 or so.

There has also been talk of Fulham eventually increasing to over 30,000.

There will also be the Olympic stadium, with its reduced capacity after the games.
nah, i'm a liverpool red.

fair enough, a redeveloped white hart lane or new spurs stadium should be on the list.

as for selhurst park, the council've blocked plans to redevelop one of the stands so the club are looking at relocating, although i'm guessing this wouldn't be to a 40,000+ stadium, and the same goes for fulham in the event of relocation. and the olympic stadium will be way below the required 40,000 once the games are finished.

all-in-all the list for london could be eight 40,000+ purpose-built football stadiums. pretty impressive stuff! two more and the city can bid to host the world cup all on its own!
Noostairz no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 02:55 AM   #185
BobDaBuilder
Registered User
 
BobDaBuilder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yarck
Posts: 1,542
Likes (Received): 1

World Cup 2014 - possibly Australia

Blatter Cup warning to Brazil
From correspondents in Rio de Janeiro
April 14, 2006

ARGENTINA and Chile could co-host the 2014 World Cup if Brazil is incapable of staging the event, FIFA President Sepp Blatter said today (AEST).

Blatter told Brazilian newspaper O Estadio de Sao Paulo that a joint bid between Argentina and Chile might be a possibility if Brazil is unable to build suitable stadia and infrastructure in time.

Under FIFA's policy of rotating the World Cup between continents, South America is guaranteed the right to host the 2014 finals, and Brazil has long been regarded as the front-runner.

But in remarks that could be viewed as a warning shot to Brazil, Blatter said FIFA may consider other options if the country struggled to put together a credible bid – and floated the idea of a joint bid.

"Why not present a joint bid between Argentina and Chile?" Blatter asked the paper. "At the moment I don't believe that Brazil has the stadia capable of staging the World Cup," he said.

FIFA said after the 2002 finals, staged by South Korea and Japan, that the Cup is unlikely to be split between two countries ever again.

Blatter said that if no South American country is able to bid for the tournament, FIFA would look to switch the location to North America or Australia, almost certainly meaning the finals would be staged in the United States, Mexico or Australia.

The vote to determine the 2014 host will be made at the FIFA Congress in 2008.

Agence France-Presse
BobDaBuilder no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 03:41 AM   #186
Aka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,382
Likes (Received): 145

What? Not Mexico again!!! Jeez.........
Aka no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:09 AM   #187
sydney_lad
Registered Abuser
 
sydney_lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Syd upon Ney
Posts: 685
Likes (Received): 0

Where'd u get that from??
__________________
"Der ball ist rund"
sydney_lad no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:16 AM   #188
pompeyfan
Registered User
 
pompeyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Queensland
Posts: 1,410
Likes (Received): 84

i believe that if they hold a joint World Cup again they should directly border each other
__________________
Check out my latest stadium models for sketchup here

Keep up with my latest projects here
pompeyfan no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:25 AM   #189
Tancred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 51
Likes (Received): 0

Have there not been a few threads of late showing the new stadiums of Brazil being built?

If it is taken from Brazil, my money would be on Mexico, then the USA.
Tancred no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:26 AM   #190
pulga
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Eixo do Mal
Posts: 3,149
Likes (Received): 1

i can say one thing, if that happens, that would be the first world cup without Brazil playing and honestly, a world cup would be more interesting to wacth if they played without the ball than without Brazil.

blatter can blablabla, it has more chance of kikcking him out of Fifa than that of happening
pulga no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:31 AM   #191
sydney_lad
Registered Abuser
 
sydney_lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Syd upon Ney
Posts: 685
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by pulga
i can say one thing, if that happens, that would be the first world cup without Brazil playing
Why wouldnt Brazil play in it?

Anyway, Mexico has had it a bunch of times, the US has had it, Australia has never had it.

Unfortunately, i still can't see them giving it to us.
__________________
"Der ball ist rund"
sydney_lad no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:31 AM   #192
Noostairz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 9,896
Likes (Received): 10

possibly australia!?

show me 10-12 40,000+ capacity purpose-built football stadiums australia has at hand to host the world cup in 8yrs time.

Last edited by Noostairz; April 14th, 2006 at 04:38 AM.
Noostairz no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:37 AM   #193
pulga
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Eixo do Mal
Posts: 3,149
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by sydney_lad
Why wouldnt Brazil play in it?
to take an event of that size from the only country that had ben in every world cup since the first one, where it is a really important event. what do you think it wouldbe the reaction in Brazil if Fifa took the world cup from Brazil in the year the team makes 100 years.
pulga no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:37 AM   #194
sydney_lad
Registered Abuser
 
sydney_lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Syd upon Ney
Posts: 685
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by edennewstairs
possibly australia!? show me 10-12 40,000+ capacity (preferably) purpose-built football stadiums australia has at hand to host the world cup in 8yrs time.
Don't you need at least 8, 40,000+ stadiums, a max of 2 per city?
__________________
"Der ball ist rund"
sydney_lad no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:39 AM   #195
Noostairz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 9,896
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by sydney_lad
Don't you need at least 8, 40,000+ stadiums, a max of 2 per city?
the max is one city with two, the rest have to be geographically spread out around the rest of the country.

and a limit of only eight 40,000+ stadiums would be pushing it.
Noostairz no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:43 AM   #196
invincible
Lurker
 
invincible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,804
Likes (Received): 523

We don't even have cities (or civilisation for that matter) spread out across the country, let alone stadiums. :P
invincible no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:49 AM   #197
premutos
BANNED
 
premutos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 1

I hope Mexico don't get it

It would be annoying, how many times are they gonna have it?
premutos no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:52 AM   #198
pompeyfan
Registered User
 
pompeyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Queensland
Posts: 1,410
Likes (Received): 84

Yes, Australia could do it.

More than 40000

Telstra Stadium
Aussie Stadium
Telstra Dome
MCG
AAMI Stadium
Suncorp Stadium
Gabba (when seats are added)
Subiaco
New Stadium to be built in Tasmania (40000 or more)
__________________
Check out my latest stadium models for sketchup here

Keep up with my latest projects here
pompeyfan no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:52 AM   #199
sydney_lad
Registered Abuser
 
sydney_lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Syd upon Ney
Posts: 685
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by edennewstairs
the max is one city with two, the rest have to be geographically spread out around the rest of the country.

and a limit of only eight 40,000+ stadiums would be pushing it.
Yeah, that's what i meant.

Problem with Australia is, alot of our big stadiums are bloody ovals.
__________________
"Der ball ist rund"
sydney_lad no está en línea  
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:52 AM   #200
pulga
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Eixo do Mal
Posts: 3,149
Likes (Received): 1

the hole thing is so nonsense, since when argentina and chile has more condition to host a world cup than Brazil? 80% of argentina population lives in buenos Aires, and Chile is a country with 15 milhon people who doesn´t care about football. i mean it would be a one city world cup?
pulga no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
australia, united states of america, world cup

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu